Free Traffic Legal Advice

As my vehicle was clearly being loaded with boxes and furniture during the time it was parked, I believe I was within the bounds of the exemption.

But it's not clear that it was being loaded, that's the point.

Once a CEO has observed a vehicle for a reasonable period of time and not observed loading then the burden of proving the exemption falls to the motorist, in this case you.

So what are you required to prove:
As yours was not a commercial activity, that the car was necessary for transporting the goods;

That you were not in contravention for any longer than necessary.

If you don't tell the authority the size, weight, type of items then you invite them to reject your claim. Similarly, IMO you need to tell them why you did not park in the High Street outside or closer to the premises in question. From your description, the premises might be within the 'no vehicles' zone, but why didn't you park elsewhere in the High St where there are DYL but no loading restrictions. At least tell them that you considered this but decided not to because......

True, it was not immediately clear what was being loaded as we were picking up the boxes, and I understand the confusion. In my appeal, I had emphasised that the CEO observed for a mere 2 minutes, which might not have been a sufficient duration to ascertain the activity happening at that time.

To address the concerns raised:

The necessity of the car for transporting the goods: The goods comprised two boxes of children's stationery items like markers and notebooks, and a flat-packed table. These items, though compact, were fairly heavy, making it necessary to use the car for transportation. Manually carrying them to a distant parking location would have been physically strenuous and time-consuming.

Duration of the contravention: I ensured that the car was parked for no longer than was absolutely necessary, which was a brief span of 5 minutes. This was the minimum time required to safely load the heavy items onto the car.

Regarding the choice of parking location, the high street outside the premises is a protected area with bollards, preventing vehicles from pulling up closer. This is why I did not park or pull up there. However, to minimise potential disruption and to respect the rules to the best of my understanding at that time, I chose a spot that was in closest proximity without blocking any rear entrances to the shops, thus ensuring I did not obstruct their loading processes.

Contents:
2x Markers box: 40 x 40cm x 25
Notebooks box: 35 x 40 x 30
Flat pack table: 75 x 50 x 15cm

I trust this additional information clarifies my actions and the necessity behind them. I appreciate your time.

Here is my appeal letter:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally appeal the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to me on 15th June 2023, with reference to PCN number SU75942354. I believe this PCN was unjustly issued, and I wish to provide a comprehensive explanation, taking into account all relevant details of the case.

Firstly, I must highlight that my vehicle was parked on double yellow lines, not single yellow lines, as incorrectly referred to in your initial rejection letter.

I acknowledge that double yellow lines typically indicate no waiting at any time, but they also come with specific exemptions, one of which is for loading and unloading. As clearly outlined in the parking regulations, vehicles engaged in loading or unloading are exempt from enforcement on double yellow lines during the prescribed hours.

To provide a complete picture of the circumstances:

Nature of stop: On the day in question, my vehicle made a brief stop lasting no more than 5 minutes. This stop was solely for the purpose of loading boxes and furniture, which I was assisting a friend in moving from a nearby shop.

Contents of the load: The items being loaded included two boxes of merchandise, primarily comprising children's stationery items such as markers and notebooks, and a flat-packed table. The nature of these items was such that they could be comfortably accommodated on the back seat of my car.

Considerate parking: I was conscious of not obstructing the flow of traffic or inconveniencing other road users. I ensured that the loading process was completed swiftly, given the constraints of the location, which made it impractical to park in a car park or elsewhere due to the weight and bulk of the items.

High street restrictions: Parking on the high street, where the shop was located, is typically prohibited due to the presence of bollards that restrict access. This necessitated parking as close as possible while avoiding any hindrance to the shops' rear entrances.

I must reiterate that the initial rejection of my appeal was based on a significant error in referring to single yellow lines instead of double yellow lines. I kindly request a thorough review of my appeal this time, taking into account the correct road markings and the associated loading exemptions that apply.

In light of the circumstances presented above, I firmly believe that my actions were well within the boundaries of the law, as they pertained to the loading and unloading provisions on double yellow lines. I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled, and any related penalties or charges be waived.

I have enclosed copies of evidence supporting my challenge, including photographs [or any other relevant documentation]. Your prompt attention to this matter and a fair reconsideration of my appeal would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and understanding.

Yours faithfully,



Can I print this on a separate page or do I need to fit it into the box provided?

Overly long IMO.

The PCN was correctly issued because it was based upon the observations of the CEO who saw a car prima facie in contravention.

It is the authority's duty to consider all the facts and if persuaded by your loading argument to cancel because they know it's an exemption - they do not need to be lectured on the subject.

As for '..nearby shops'! Unnecessarily guarded which could only undermine your argument i.e. what's the relevance to the authority of your 'High Street' restrictions when you don't tell them exactly where the premises were located?  What was your route to the premises..the loading exemption is contingent upon necessity which carries several meanings e.g. for the transport of the load and as near as reasonably practicable etc. You didn't just park there on the off-chance you could find a convenient route to the target premises, did you?

References to car parks - not relevant. An exemption is an exemption, not a request for discretion.

DYL v SYL - as per cp's comments....why?

I parked on DYL in **** because I was loading items from ***(address). The items comprised ....... The route from my car took me ...... and I could not park closer in the High Street because....

During the ** minutes during which the CEO observed my car they wouldn't have observed the activity and therefore I could understand them issuing a PCN, however, as loading is an exemption and now that the authority are aware of the activity taking place away from the car I should expect the PCN to be cancelled. 

The PCN wording is wrong as to the 28 days to pay which should refer to the date of the alleged contravention not to date of service

Apologies, yes, my map was incorrect; however, the route I took is the same.

Thank you for sending these documents. What do I do with them? Should I include a map in my appeal?

Also, the 133a tile is not on page 8. I'm not sure how to proceed with this information.

Thank you. I have attached the revised map.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The notice to owner is dated 31 August so it is presumed delivered on 4 September unless you can prove otherwise. The 28th day from 4 September is 1 October, so I wouldn't bother trying to prove it was received later, as long as you make representations by midnight on Monday they will be treated as "in-time"

As for your map, you could attach it but I've got a much better plant.

I will PM you a link to put in the representation, it will redirect to https://imgur.com/a/NA5gKNn but if you give them the link I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at it or not (obviously do not click on that link yourself as we want the click count to remain at zero). If they don't click on it, we can then prove they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well.

All you need to do is include the link in the representation, inviting them to view the map you have uploaded at that location. Just to reiterate, do not click on the link yourself or it will defeat the object of the exercise.

Thank you for your response. My apologies for the confusion; the documents I received didn’t make it clear that online submission was an option. They simply provided a box on the paper for my appeal and tick boxes for reasoning. There was no mention of email contact or online submission, which is why I considered sending it by post.

Thank you for your patience and assistance.